America's Debate hosts the best in news, government, and political debate. Register now to take part in the most civil and constructive debate on the Internet. Join the community, and get ready to be challenged!

I listened to what seemed like about 8 years of Republicans attacking Hillary Clinton before she was even nominated by the Democratic Party. I still feel that she was the Republican Party choice as to who they should run against. Apparently, the Republicans are already convinced that their front runner in 2020 will still be their "Trump Card."

QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Jun 15 2018, 09:00 PM)

So I'm thinking that the midterms will lay the foundation for a possible impeachment in 2019. However, I also am thinking that it's to the Demos' advantage to let DJT become a toothless and claw-less POTUS for the last two years of his term rather than letting Pence into the position. It could force Trump to pardon himself, which would knock some Republicans out of their complacent stances and possibly expose others for being fundamentally against democratic republics, in favor of absolute central power, and even wanting a theocracy like Iran has, just with Christian jargon instead of Muslim.

Then once President Trump becomes just a regular citizen, he could be tried for crimes in civil courts. Maybe.

Or it could all come to naught. But with no TEA party to speak of, it's pretty hard to see a Republican win this November. And there are plenty of local issues that have either come up or gotten worse due to Trump appointees and nominations, for example public education.

It's going to be interesting no matter what.

I have been listening to Rudy Giuliani's advice to The President, the Press, and anyone with a cell phone as he expounds on his memory of what he wrote about Constitutional law when he was still a law student. His declared fee for defending President Trump has been, "Of course I'm not going to charge Donald for my services." (And why should he bother as "The Donald" has a reputation for not paying his lawyers and not listening to them.)

Okay, so Rudy wants his hat in the ring and his name on the Front Pages as a Republican when his party of choice finally realizes that they backed the wrong horses in 2016 and they will need a new horse to back in 2020. It is still June of 2018 and we have yet to see what impact Trump has on the mid-term elections...

Nonetheless, I would like to see a few hats tossed into the Democratic Ring by Democrats.

Who would you, as a Democrat, like to see nominated by the Democratic Party for President in 2020?

And then there's Colorado's governor who might be looking at DC after leaving this office. Term-limited out. But his name is kinda funny, more than two syllables, so that could be a showstopper.

It'd be a hoot if Mueller were to switch parties and run against either Trump or Pence, depending on how history unfolds. If it rhymes, then it has to happen.

However, nothing rhymes with orange. Election season 2020 could be a very different event, as in being called off by our Dear Leader or pushed out due to nuclear war or stopped entirely from the space alien zombie invasion. They look a lot like tomatoes with tentacles.

Who would you, as a Democrat, like to see nominated by the Democratic Party for President in 2020?

I still like Bernie, so I'll stick with him, or at least somebody from the (true) Progressive wing of the party. Liz Warren and Tulsi Gabbard come to mind.

Problem is, the Clinton wing (why does it still exist?) is still looking to exclude progressives. Keith Ellison was about to win the DNC chair, then the old (losing) guard pulled Tom Perez out of their backside and stuck him in there instead.

I think, just like in 2016, they are playing a game of chicken with Sanders voters; we DARE you not to vote Democrat! Even though they stacked the deck against Bernie and still barely won the primaries, then lost an unlosable election, they are trying the exact same thing. And it's not going to end well. Again.

Last election, I thought it would be the Republican party to fracture, with Trump taking a few crazies with him off to the fringe. Now, I think the Democrats are closer to fracturing. If the progressives don't get a seat at the table, I don't know why they would stick around any longer.

Who would you, as a Democrat, like to see nominated by the Democratic Party for President in 2020?

I still like Bernie, so I'll stick with him, or at least somebody from the (true) Progressive wing of the party. Liz Warren and Tulsi Gabbard come to mind.

Problem is, the Clinton wing (why does it still exist?) is still looking to exclude progressives. Keith Ellison was about to win the DNC chair, then the old (losing) guard pulled Tom Perez out of their backside and stuck him in there instead.

Keep in mind that the Democratic Party lost to the Electoral College, not to the actual voters.

QUOTE

I think, just like in 2016, they are playing a game of chicken with Sanders voters; we DARE you not to vote Democrat! Even though they stacked the deck against Bernie and still barely won the primaries, then lost an unlosable election, they are trying the exact same thing. And it's not going to end well. Again.

Both the loss and the Trump win are -- you know. It was a fluke, a real-life demonstration that an indirect election scheme like the Electoral College is a very bad idea for a representative democratic republic.

The question is whether the fluke can be repeated. If so, that might signal the end of the EC by constitutional amendment.

Still, can the events of the 2016 election season be repeated now that we are discovering how it was, if not caused by then encouraged by, some pretty deplorable deeds by some sleazy stuffed shirts, both domestic and foreign? I doubt it.

QUOTE

Last election, I thought it would be the Republican party to fracture, with Trump taking a few crazies with him off to the fringe. Now, I think the Democrats are closer to fracturing. If the progressives don't get a seat at the table, I don't know why they would stick around any longer.

Because going off into left field dilutes the vote, and that enables a fluke victory as was handed to Trump.

Perhaps progressives need to review what happens when the vote is diluted, also referred to as split. It brought RMN into office, also GWB.

So, what would you rather have, another Trump term or someone who, if not as progressive as desired, is a whole lot better for the country?

In effect, the desire for progressive purity works in favor of the Trump GOP.

Why is it always the progressive wing that is expected to acquiesce? Why can't the Clinton wing move a bit left, for once? Why is the Clinton wing still in existence, anyway?

Democrats should (and generally do) line up and vote for the Dem nominee. Most Sanders people did just that, even though we HATED the way the Dem primaries were "handled." But it was Bernie who got the independents on board, not Hillary. The Clinton Dems are the ones missing the boat here - people have zero enthusiasm for her, or anybody like her. Voters want progressive ideas put forth. They want universal healthcare, not a few tweaks to the present system.

We had two real candidates in 2016 that truly promised change - Sanders and Trump. That's where the enthusiasm was, good or bad. Trump's election was no fluke. Nobody, on either side, wanted the staus quo. Hillary might have had "staus quo" tattooed on her forehead.

In hindsight, sure, the status quo would have been better than Trump, but only because Trump is a psycho, not because the status quo is a good thing. Problem is, I think this is what the Clinton Dems are banking on; "See what happened the last time you didn't vote for the status quo? You should have voted for more of the same. Again." Well, I'd say the same thing to them - "See what happens when you install a wildly unpopular candidate, just because she has money behind her? Don't make that same mistake in 2020. Let the voters decide, and don't interfere in that process."

In effect, the desire for progressive purity works in favor of the Trump GOP.

Why is it always the progressive wing that is expected to acquiesce? Why can't the Clinton wing move a bit left, for once? Why is the Clinton wing still in existence, anyway?

Because the Democratic Party reformed itself after the 1968 convention in Chicago in order to 1) not appoint the nominee despite primaries, and 2) keep populist demagogues from taking over.

QUOTE

Democrats should (and generally do) line up and vote for the Dem nominee. Most Sanders people did just that, even though we HATED the way the Dem primaries were "handled." But it was Bernie who got the independents on board, not Hillary. The Clinton Dems are the ones missing the boat here - people have zero enthusiasm for her, or anybody like her. Voters want progressive ideas put forth. They want universal healthcare, not a few tweaks to the present system.

How do you know Sanders (not the chicken lady, not the colonel) brought on unaffiliated voters? The ballot is a secret one, and what people say is inherently unreliable. It does seem true that some unaffiliated voters went HRC's way due to Sanders, but how many others did so because of Trump?

Nobody really knows.

QUOTE

We had two real candidates in 2016 that truly promised change - Sanders and Trump. That's where the enthusiasm was, good or bad. Trump's election was no fluke. Nobody, on either side, wanted the staus quo. Hillary might have had "staus quo" tattooed on her forehead.

In hindsight, sure, the status quo would have been better than Trump, but only because Trump is a psycho, not because the status quo is a good thing. Problem is, I think this is what the Clinton Dems are banking on; "See what happened the last time you didn't vote for the status quo? You should have voted for more of the same. Again." Well, I'd say the same thing to them - "See what happens when you install a wildly unpopular candidate, just because she has money behind her? Don't make that same mistake in 2020. Let the voters decide, and don't interfere in that process."

When one candidate beats another by 2.8 million votes, and when the Electoral College makes the win not only moot but reverses it, arguing about who voted for whom becomes meaningless.

The Trump EC win has demonstrated that an idea that might have made perfect sense in the 18th century no longer does in the 21st. It does not keep populist demagogues away from power, and that power is a whole lot stronger today than when the nation was younger, smaller, less populated and technologically undeveloped (by today's standards). There are a lot of other big differences too, but you get my drift.

The one thing I can point to as a positive is that what wasn't fully understood in 2016 is now up in everyone's face: Trump's win was America's loss. Well, except for the shrinking Republican base. Maybe by 2020, it'll have become a squeaking little mouse -- or maybe a raging bull?

Why is it always the progressive wing that is expected to acquiesce? Why can't the Clinton wing move a bit left, for once? Why is the Clinton wing still in existence, anyway?

Because the Democratic Party reformed itself after the 1968 convention in Chicago in order to 1) not appoint the nominee despite primaries,...

But they allowed superdelegates to interfere with the primary process, which became a de facto appointment. If superdelegates are supposed to be some sort of protection against the people electing a madman, then they should be a nonfactor in a normal primary election (like 2016), and should probably even be split in proportion to the actual votes, so as not to steal influence from the voters. Instead, delegates declared their support for Clinton right out of the gate.

QUOTE

...and 2) keep populist demagogues from taking over.

That sounds a lot like, "anybody outside of the mainstream is a 'populist demagogue'."

QUOTE

How do you know Sanders (not the chicken lady, not the colonel) brought on unaffiliated voters? The ballot is a secret one, and what people say is inherently unreliable. It does seem true that some unaffiliated voters went HRC's way due to Sanders, but how many others did so because of Trump?

Polls. Interviews. Rallies. Talking with other people.

QUOTE

When one candidate beats another by 2.8 million votes, and when the Electoral College makes the win not only moot but reverses it, arguing about who voted for whom becomes meaningless.

I'm not a big fan of the electoral college myself, but it's how we elect our presidents, so pointing to the popular vote is a lot like claiming your baseball team should have won because they got more hits, but fewer runs. Everybody plays by the same rules (except for the primaries), and she lost the game. The electoral college system just means that you can break the analysis down to certain states.

So the arguments aren't meaningless. Understanding exactly what happened is the best way to prevent it from happening again. One side sees it as Bernie siphoning off progressives and weakening the Clinton faction, and the other side sees it as the old guard resisting necessary and popular change. Look at how the Dem party is treating the Ocasio-Cortez win over Crowley, like it wasn't a legitimate win. It just wasn't what the old guard was expecting.